Loading...
1959-03-03 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 3, 1959 The meeting convened at 7 :30 o'clock p.m. with President McCall presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Freeman followed by a most inspiring Invocation delivered by The Reverend Mr. Mervin Magill, Pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church. ROLL CALL: The roll was called and Councilmen Collischonn, Freeman, Petersen, Schacht and President McCall, (5), were noted present. Absent: None. MINUTES: 1. The minutes of the regular meeting held February 17, 1959, were approved as transcribed. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 2. From Mesdames Alma L. Riggio and Anna C. Scheuermann, 1119 Union Street, regis- tering their objections to the proposed closing of San Antonio Avenue, between Chestnut and Lafayette Streets. The letter was referred to the subject listed under "Hearings" on the agenda. 3' From Mr. Joseph A. Kitterman, 855 Cedar Street, requesting that his existing lagoon easement be cancelled, in exchange for another easement he will grant which will exclude the area over which his proposed dwelling is to be constructed. There being no objections, the matter was referred to the City Attorney for his study and recommendation. +:( From Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District, signed by Mr. Robert K. Barber, President, outlining the program of the District and requesting an opportunity to make a brief personal report on the District's activities. President McCall stated he would call upon Mr. Barber under "Oral Communications ". 5. From twenty -two residents on Liberty Avenue, in the form of a petition, regis- tering their protest against the contemplated lease of a portion of Lincoln Park for a swimming pool. The matter was referred to the subject listed under "Ordinances for Passage" on the agenda. 6;/ From Alameda Chamber of Commerce, signed by Mr. Jerry C. Jacobs, President, com- mending the Council on its interest in rezoning "Chipman" property and urging that careful consideration be given to establishing an "R -5PD" classification, which would give maximum flexibility to the development of this important project. It was pointed out there is a resolution on the agenda covering this matter - but the suggested zoning contained therein is for an "R -5' District. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 7/ Mr. Frank Gottstein, 731 Haight Avenue, referred to the terrible accident which recently occurred in Posey Tube and again spoke of his previous suggestion that any time the Tube is blocked the southbound Oakland traffic should be diverted to the Freeway in order that the congestion can be alleviated by allowing northbound Alameda traffic to use both lanes of the Tube to clear up the blockage as soon as possible. He said he realizes this matter is under the jurisdiction of the City of Oakland but he expressed the hope that something could be worked out to effect the proposed detour when necessary. 8. Mr. George Rose, member of the Recreation Commission, requested permission to address the Council concerning the relocation of certain facilities in Lincoln Park in connection with the proposed lease for a swimming pool. It was indicated he would have this opportunity at the time the matter came up under "Ordinances for Passage ". 9. Mr. Girdwood N. Pope, 1820 Bay Street, referred to the Chamber's letter and its request for an "R -5PD" classification for the Chipman property. He questioned the "Planned Development" attachment because it would allow commercial development which would be detrimental to businesses on Webster Street. It was explained to Mr. Pope that there is a resolution on the agenda with regard to the reclassification of the property in question from an "R -.PD" to an "R -5" (General Apartment) District, which merely initiates the procedure - and public hearings will be held before both the City Planning Board and the City Council. A 10. Mr. Harvey Marshall, 2125 Santa Clara Avenue, stated the large parking area of Bethlehem- Maritime Shipyard along Webster Street is used by many people to teach others to drive. He suggested the pavement be marked with lines indicating street inter- 26 sections and parking spaces to afford actual driving conditions to help the new drivers. President McCall pointed out this is private property and all those who have been using it for driving lessons have been trespassing. Mr. Annibale explained the City has no interest in this property whatsoever and, therefore, it is not a proper item for City business in any manner. 11. Mr. Barber of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District next addressed the Coun- cil, stating the District is now in the process of restudying and revising the program for transit facilities. He said he would ask the Council and City staff to consider the basic program and designate some representative from the City to meet with the staff of the District to present suggestions which would be beneficial to the citi- zens of Alameda and the District generally. He pointed out the bond issue on the ballot at the last election received a sixty-one per cent favorable vote and he felt the required two-thirds majority vote will be forthcoming, with the improvements which can be made through the recommendations of City Councils and other groups and whatever additional benefits should be provided to enable the District to receive the necessary vote. He asked that the staff contact Mr. Worthington, General Manager of the District, to make any proposals for consideration and urged the Council's approval and support of the District's plan. Councilman Collischonn commented that he felt the District's plan, as previously pre- sented, was lacking in provision for improvement of the transportation system within the City of Alameda and he suggested that if the District wants Alameda's support in the future it should be mindful of the City's needs here. Mr. Barber assured the Council the District is desirous of Alameda's support and is interested in receiving any proposals for improving the transit facilities in this, area. In response to Councilman Freeman's remark in concurrence with Councilman Collischonn, Mr. Barber pointed out the original plan provided for reduced headways on the "0", No. 64 and No. 79 Lines, which would be a considerable improvement in service. He admitted this is not the best transportation which can be provided for the City of Alameda and stated there is now the opportunity to consider what further improvements can be made. He said the Council and the City staff can be of great assistance to the District - a basic plan is offered, the District would like to know in what respect Alameda believes it can be improved. Councilman Schacht stated he believes it behooves the City to spend some time in try- ing to offer to the District some concrete suggestions for better transportation in Alameda. Upon request, Mr. Barber explained the difference in the type of service to be pro- vided by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Following further discussion, it was determined the matter would be referred to the City Manager for his compilation of information from the staff and his report to the Council for its eventual submission to the District. It was so ordered. Mr. Ralph Smith of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce stated he had a copy of a letter dated February 5, 1959, from Mr. Worthington to the Chamber, indicating the District is preparing a detailed map and description of the De Leuw Cather & Company trans- portation service recommendations for Alameda. He said that as soon as these data are received the Chamber will study them very thoroughly and make its recommendation. Mr. Barber mentioned that these maps and schedules will be ready within a week and, will then be delivered to the Council and other interested organizations. HEARINGS: 12. Continued from the last meeting was the matter of the "Shumaker" petition con- cerning his property on Willow Street. The Clerk read a letter from Dr. Shumaker stating progress has been made in his negotiations with South Shore and Co. and he hopes to effect the actual exchange of land before the next Council meeting. He, therefore, asked that the Hearing be continued once again. It was ascertained there were no objections to the continuance and Councilman Schacht thereupon moved the Hearing be continued to the meeting of March 17, 1959. The motion was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and on roll call carried by the follow- ing vote. Ayes: Five, Noes: None. Absent: None. 13. Called up at this time was the matter of the proposed closing of San Antonio Avenue, between Lafayette and Chestnut Streets, as set forth in Resolution of Inten- tion No. 5898. The Clerk stated there is on file the Affidavit of Publication of said Resolution and the Affidavit of Posting Notices in the area involved. Also on file is a resume of the deliberations of the Planning Board on the subject, reaffirming its previous position that this portion of San Antonio Avenue not be abandoned. Attention was called to the letter of protest from Mesdames Riggio and Scheuermann, referred from "Written Communications". Mr. George E. McDonald, Attorney, represented Saint Joseph's Parish. He filed with the Clerk a petition, signed by two hundred fourteen residents in the vicinity, "urg- ing the City Council to take the necessary steps to close San Antonio Avenue, between Chestnut and Lafayette Streets, as requested by Saint Joseph's Church". Mr. McDonald also submitted a letter dated March 2, 1959, summarizing the arguments in favor of the abandonment, and attached thereto were other documents in support and clarifica- tion thereof. He pointed out the Planning Director had originally advised the Planning Board this proposed abandonment was good, in his opinion - it would cause no detriment to the future growth of Alameda, it would fall within the neighborhood grouping which he felt was desirable and the traffic flow along San Antonio Avenue should be impeded rather than encouraged. Mr. McDonald referred to the memorandum of Mr. Essex of the Planning Board, submitted as a minority opinion in favor of the closing, which very thoroughly analyzes the situation from a planning standpoint and Mr. McDonald said he felt great weight should be given to it. The following persons addressed the Council in favor of closing said portion of San Antonio Avenue - from the standpoint of safety for the children attending Saint Joseph's Schools and also pointing up the fact that since there are stop signs at practically every block along this avenue, it is not a desirable thoroughfare for through traffic: Mrs. William J. Locke, 1161 Bay Street; Mr. Daniel J. Rourke, 1803 San Antonio Avenue; Dr. Paul M. Pedersen, 1024 Grand Street; and Mrs. Renata Perata, 1416 Mound Street, who cited the fact that the same situation had also prevailed in connection with Lincoln School, where Van Buren Street had been closed. The following spoke in opposition to said abandonment: Mr. Carl March, 1906 Santa Clara Avenue; Mr. Harvey R. Marshall, 2125 Santa Clara Avenue; Mr. C. T. Smith, 2116 Encinal Avenue; Mrs. Margaret S. Scheuermann, 1711 Encinal Avenue; and Mr. A. Porikos, 1502 East Shore Drive. It was developed by these several parties that such closing would be granting to private interests the exclusive use of this block; the safety factor has been over-emphasized - the same situation holds true for all schools; the street is one of long-standing use; it is the widest east-west thoroughfare south of Encinal Avenue and it would be unwise to abandon it now when it is not known how the South Shore development might affect the traffic pattern. Considerable discussion ensued on all phases of the situation during the course of the Hearing. Mr. Weller explained the only issue in this matter for the Council to determine is whether or not San Antonio Avenue continues to have use as a public street. Mr. Annibale concurred, stating it is utterly immaterial who owns the property fronting on this street - the only question before the Hearing is whether or not this parti- cular area is required for present and prospective street purposes. He pointed out that all the City would be doing would be to abandon an easement or right-of-way for public traffic to go over and across this specified block. For further clarification, Mr. Annibale read a portion of the resolution which would order such vacation. Councilman Schacht spoke at length in further clarification of the fact that the City is asked to abandon an easement or right-of-way and, in view of the evidence presented by the Planning Director, Fire and Police Departments, City Engineer and others - if only the facts are considered - he felt the Council would be acting in the City's best interests by abandoning said block. He pointed out the land - if the street were closed off - could be used only unobstructed. It could be leveled and become a play yard, but it could not be built upon as all of the public utility lines run under the surface and if it were contemplated to construct a building in this area, then all of the utility lines would have to be relocated. He said he did not believe this block is needed as a public street and he had been informed by the Planning Director that the passive streets in Alameda have become San Antonio, Alameda and Pacific Avenues. He felt the closing of this street would not inconvenience anyone and he is convinced it would be the right thing to do. There being no objections to a revision of the Order of Business, Councilman Schacht thereupon introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5906 Ordering the Vacation of San Antonio Avenue Between Lafayette and Chestnut Streets, in the City of Alameda." The motion was seconded by Councilman Petersen. Councilman Freeman questioned just how the Council determines this block is not needed as a public street and Mr. Annibale replied that it is assumed this area is a public street but the City Council's conclusion will be based upon the finding that it is not necessary for present or prospective street purposes, as a result of reports from the City staff, Planning Board and comments and evidence submitted by both the pro- ponents and opponents present at this Hearing. Councilman Freeman stated she is loathe to abandon any street in Alameda because it is never known when the City might need it - and she asked if this street could not just be blocked off during the school hours, since the safety of the children seemed to be the reason for the request. She felt this would retain the easements for the City, the petitioner would be satisfied and eventually, when it is known what the traffic pattern will be from the South Shore, and with the predicted population increase, the street will be available in case one-way traffic is to be established. `, 1 Following further discussion, Mr. Annibale reiterated the basic question before the City Council and said the decision should be based on that question alone - all these other issues are interesting indeed but they are not material to the particular mat- ter before the Council. Mr. Hanna asked if the resolution provides for the reconstruction of the "stub" ends of the intersections involved and it was developed that the matter had been discussed and the Church was agreeable to pay the expenses entailed, regardless of who owns the fee title of the land. Therefore, Mr. Annibale stated said provision would be added to the resolution. The question was then put and the motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Coun- cilmen Collischonn, Petersen, Schacht and President McCall, (4). Noes: None. Not Voting: Councilman Freeman, (1). Absent: None. President McCall thereupon declared the Hearing on this matter closed. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS, ETCETERA: 14. From the Mayor, Assistant City Manager and City Auditor, submitting their report on the Count of Money held February 18, 1959, which indicates the amount of 3,887,031.93 in the City Treasury. The report was noted and ordered filed. 15. From City Planning Board, recommending approval of the Record of Survey Map of Lot 107, Block 3, Tract No. 1866, South Shore Unit I - provided the subdivider will comply with the stipulations of the City Engineer. Councilman Collischonn moved the Board's recommendation be adopted; that said Record of Survey be approved, contingent upon the following: (1) Conditions imposed by the City Engineer in his report to the Board dated January 23, 1959; (2) Utility and Sewer Mains be shown on the Record of Survey Map and installed to the City Engi- neer's satisfaction. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 16. From City Manager, recommending approval of Street Improvements in Tract No. 1849 - the Paul Wood development at the east end of Encinal Avenue. Councilman Schacht moved the recommendation be accepted; that the Street Improvements in said Tract be approved. The motion was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 1 . At this point, Mr. Weller made an oral report concerning the recent call for bids on the furnishing of a Trencher for the Golf Department. He stated there was only one bid received and, in this particular instance, he would recommend that it be rejected and he be authorized to purchase the necessary piece of equipment in the open market on the basis that he believes it is possible to effect a saving to the City in this way. Councilman Petersen moved the bid be rejected and the certified check be returned to the bidder. The motion was seconded by Councilman Collischonn and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. Councilman Petersen then moved that since the Council finds the Trencher can be pur- chased at a more economical price in the open market, the City Manager be authorized to so purchase said equipment. The motion was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES: 18. Councilman Collischonn introduced the following ordinance, after which it was laid over under provision of law and the Charter: "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Real Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, New Series." (Central Avenue - 'Grey and Schmidt' property) RESOLUTIONS: 19. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Collischonn, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No. 5907 Resolution of the Council of the City of Alameda, on Its Own Initiative, to Refer to the City Planning Board for Action the Matter of the Reclassification and Rezoning of Certain Real Property in the City of Alameda (Chipman Housing Area) from an "R -4PD" (Neighborhood Apartment - Planned Development) District to an "R -5" (General Apartment) District." 29 The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Petersen and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. 20. The following resolution was introduced by Councilman Collischonn, who moved its adoption: "Resolution No 5908 Adopting Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans for the Construction of a Roadway in Tilden Way Between the Intersection of Park Street and Lincoln Avenue and the Fruitvale Bridge; Calling for Bids and Directing City Clerk to Advertise Same." The motion to adopt said resolution was seconded by Councilman Schacht and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. The President thereupon declared all of the foregoing resolutions duly adopted and passed. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE: 21. "Ordinance No. New Series An Ordinance Authorizing the Execution of a Lease By and Between the City of Alameda, as Lessor, and The Alameda Swimming Pool Association, as Lessee, of Certain City-owned Land (Portion of Lincoln Park)." Councilman Schacht moved the ordinance be adopted as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Collischonn. As requested earlier in the meeting, Mr. George Rose was called upon and addressed the Council, stating as a preface he was not speaking on the swimming pool as such. He stated that, as the Council well knows, he is completely opposed to the leasing of public park lands for private use. However, since that has been resolved, he is primarily speaking on the relocation of certain facilities made necessary by the pro- posed construction of a swimming pool. He said the relocation of these facilities as presently contemplated is so impractical he felt he must not remain silent on the subject. He referred to a memorandum dated February 20, as a result of the Recrea- tion Commission meeting on February 19. He cited the statistics set forth therein, and pointed up the fact that in establishing the basketball courts in the area formerly used for the croquet court, two beautiful trees would have to be destroyed. He sub- mitted for inspection some snapshots to illustrate this point. He felt the entire plan is a makeshift affair and he could not put his stamp of approval on such a program. Councilman Petersen inquired who is to pay for relocating these facilities, under the provisions of the Lease Agreement and Mr. Annibale replied that the City would pay said expenses - in other words, there is nothing in the Agreement which requires the Swimming Pool Association to pay for it. Councilman Petersen said he believes the Association should be bound to pay for the relocation of these facilities without any question. President McCall stated the question of placing the pool in Krusi Park had been dis- cussed and he suggested the Council be apprised if it would be possible to locate the pool there, in view of the existing facilities in Lincoln Park which would have to be relocated - and also in recognition of the petition of protest from the Liberty Avenue residents. President McCall pointed out the City does not want to lose all of those playground facilities in Lincoln Park or the opportunity to have a pool con- structed either. He said Mr. Weeden and the Association are working for a great cause and he felt they would have no objection to having the pool established in Krusi Park - they are merely interested in finding a suitable location. However, there is some question about what area of Krusi Park can be used for this facility. Therefore, he asked the pleasure of the Council with regard to having this alternate location con- sidered if the deeds did not contain any restrictions against such a facility. Councilman Collischonn said this point is worthy of consideration and, under the cir- cumstances, he would withdraw his second to the motion for adoption of the ordinance in question. Mr. Annibale stated that, before he would advise the Council to proceed, insofar as Krusi Park is concerned, he would like to have the opportunity to examine the under- lying deeds and documents more closely and particularly the area to which they refer. He also reported upon a telephone conversation he had with Judge Van Sicklen who represents the Swimming Pool Association and Mr. Weeden. Judge Van Sicklen had stated that, in view of the recent petition of protest - and if the Council were going to act adversely to the swimming pool, the matter be laid over until the next Council meeting because Mr. Weeden is out of town now and he would like the opportunity to present his views on the subject. Councilman Schacht said he agreed it would be best to lay the matter over in view of the circumstances. There being no objections, it was so ordered - and, during the interim, the City Attorney would confer with the City Engineer and the Recreation Director to ascertain the status of the situation. 30 FILING: 22. Specifications No. PW 8-58-12 - Project of Constructing a Roadway in Tilden Way. BILLS: 23. An itemized List of Claims against the City of Alameda, and the Departments thereof, in the amount of .9,725.27, was submitted to the Council at this meeting. The list was accompanied by certification from the City Manager that the Claims shown were correct. Councilman Petersen moved the bills as itemized in the List of Claims filed with the City Clerk on March 3, 1959, and presented to the Council at this time, be allowed and paid. The motion was seconded by Councilman Freeman and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Five. Noes: None. Absent: None. ADJOURNMENT: 24. There being no further business to come before the meeting, the Council adjourned - to assemble in regular session on Tuesday evening, March 17, 1959, at 7:30 o'clock. Respectfully submitted,